"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships.
It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradiction to the ideals of what the prize is named after, but I digress.
Notice I did not say "potential short term individual hardships", regardless of what he was charged and convicted of (which wasn't failure to comply with NSA orders of which he says are in retaliation of)…
No, there isn't, in case you haven't been paying attention.
When it comes to NSA, there is no "they" anymore. In the eyes of NSA, a company is not a whole, but rather a group of individuals that can face jail time, individually.
And yes, "legally" speaking, companies and individuals supposedly can fight back, but they are coerced into doing it in secret. Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off.
So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.
So Yahoo! "fighting back" apparently was apart of the smoke and mirrors, since apparently they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state?
>Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off.
Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats? Can't wait to see the headlines on Bloomberg for that…
>So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.
If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…
"they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state?"
Yep. I guarantee that as well as taking the process through the courts, they have also been obeying the existing law. They have no choice.
"Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats?"
or child molesters, or rapists, or tax fraudsters, or anything that can be found and has the smallest chance of sticking.
There is a pretty good history of this, including Assange, and the CEO of some telco whose name I forget. It is a pretty standard way for Intelligence departmentsto get what they want, see the history of intelligence companies.
The NSA have access to all our communications, finding something to use as blackmail isn't going to be hard.
"If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…"
we honestly do. The actions of the state are moving beyond the common understanding of the social contract.
>Yep. I guarantee that as well as taking the process through the courts, they have also been obeying the existing law. They have no choice.
True, but by submitting to the will of the court (system), they effectively made their choice. They could have made an public announcement of such secret order and dealt with the legal repercussions, Which in my eyes, would have be more of a blow to the surveillance state (than some golden star given by EFF that they can put on their fridge, while still being complicit with the state) and set a precedent for other companies to do the same…
>or child molesters, or rapists, or tax fraudsters, or anything that can be found and has the smallest chance of sticking. There is a pretty good history of this, including Assange, and the CEO of some telco whose name I forget. It is a pretty standard way for Intelligence departmentsto get what they want, see the history of intelligence companies.
Some would call this getting into tinfoil hat territory, but what you state what has happened is more palpable to the public than to declare such individuals, that so many people look up to, as terrorists (effectively putting them in the same light as those who the state alleges perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 that justifies the ongoing combat in countries that we are not at war with and the death of thousands of civilians caught in the cross-hairs [of whom of which is has been documented that the state has given weapons, aid and intel to on multiple occasions]).
>The NSA have access to all our communications, finding something to use as blackmail isn't going to be hard.
But of course the information the NSA collects, that is outsourced to the BAH's (which apparently any sysadmin can get their hands onto :P) who are owned by the Carlyle's wouldn't dare blackmail their portfolio company CEO's or fellow shareholders in order to not damage the potential profits of their companies… ;)
>we honestly do. The actions of the state are moving beyond the common understanding of the social contract.
Agreed… but somehow, this is the elephant in the room for many people…
There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. Many tech companies didn't even raise "arms" against the NSA invasion -- they in fact built systems to make the NSA's surveillance easier than they even needed to.
In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider).
Let's not mix this up with Obama's Nobel Prize. I don't think anyone outside the Nobel Committee, including even Michelle Obama, thought it was an appropriate selection at the time or today.
>There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated.
But submitting oneself the court system of the state to overturn the the secret rule of the state, on face value, looks like an exercise in futility…
And like I said below, being rewarded a golden star from the EFF to stick upon Marrissa's Fridge while remaining complicit and receive praise from those in the tech community for "trying", is quite amusing to watch. They could have been much more effective publicly denouncing such secret order and face the ramifications as a multinational corporation… you know, like HSBC's slap on the wrist for laundering drug money that the state says is always going to the terrorists.
>In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider).
Or you pull a snowden and watch the global state trip all over its own laws and the sovereignty of other nations to try and catch you.
